Satellites for internet

[RCBH928]

Hello,

I have been much bothered by slow internet connections, high prices, and worst of all bandwidth limit in an HD world and multiple GB of gaming.

I was wondering why won't they use satellites(or cable whatever you use) to transfer information like on my tv.

TV channels send a clear HDTV signal, no limit, hardly any delay. They made a modem for the telephone lines to carry computer signals. Can't they make a modem for satellites or something?

any one would like to shed some light on this subject? I am sure there must be a perfectly good reason for this. i just don't know it

[fastbilly1]

Satellite internet exists. It is just slow (compared to hardlines) and has a terrible upload - in the past it was via a phoneline. Wildblue and Hughes are the two providers Ive heard the most about.

I can get a 1.5 meg down, 200 k up connection at my house for $80 a month, or I can 22/2 for $80 via the cable company.

Now there is potential for it to go alot faster, but the market is just not there. I know that one of the US bases in Antarctica has a 20/20 connection via satellite (trds system) but then again, thats military

[CRTGAMER]

Hello,

I have been much bothered by slow internet connections, high prices, and worst of all bandwidth limit in an HD world and multiple GB of gaming.

I was wondering why won't they use satellites(or cable whatever you use) to transfer information like on my tv.

TV channels send a clear HDTV signal, no limit, hardly any delay. They made a modem for the telephone lines to carry computer signals. Can't they make a modem for satellites or something?

any one would like to shed some light on this subject? I am sure there must be a perfectly good reason for this. i just don't know it

I hope you are kidding. There is Internet through the TV Cable and Satellite.

A cable modem arrangement is pretty quick.

[RCBH928]

i was just thinking that so much information flows from satellites (hd channels) and its instant
no download or limited use

maybe they can use that but for internet data?

[Limewater]

i was just thinking that so much information flows from satellites (hd channels) and its instant
no download or limited use

maybe they can use that but for internet data?

Fastbilly already mentioned that satellite-based internet service is available. There are, however, a lot of technical challenges to its use which keeps cost high and capacity rather low.

Satellite TV providers can have a lot of channels broadcast over one satellite because it's a one-way situation. That keeps information overhead a lot lower. They can also have an essentially unlimited number of receivers watching the programs.

Each satellite only has a limited bandwidth, though, which has to be shared among everyone who wants to use it for communication. You also have to worry about your dish being pointed correctly, etc. It's also a lot more expensive to launch an extra satellite than to run cable and install base stations.

There are a bunch of other reasons why it's not terribly practical for a lot of people at this point. Right now, it's really best mostly for folks who really don't have any other options.

[lordofduct]

A buddy of mine had satellite internet for a while (it was really all that was available in his area other then standard telephone modem).

The biggest problem was the one way message sending. It could only RECEIVE or DOWNLOAD data... upload had to be done over a standard 56K modem (and in the case of overcast it defaulted back to the 56k modem for downloads as well). This resulted in a very odd internet experience.

That and the download speeds weren't as fast as you might think.

Some people think that because say a satellite signal or a cable line can hold so many stations, why can't I receive the equivalent in bandwidth...

Well the problem fall to a lack of redundancy.

See television broadcasts are a single long flow, if I turn to one channel or the other on the same providers network, it's identical data no matter where I am. May I be at my neighbours next door, or my friends on the otherside of town. The data is identical. There is a static amount of bandwidth requirement... and that static value is the number of stations being broadcast. And this isn't a analogue only thing, this goes for the digital connections as well... we're serving up the same small number of stations... digital can be compressed more so we can fit more in the same static space.

Where as on demand services like internet and... on demand tv. Are on a per user basis. House 1 can be watching one thing, while House2 watches another. So instead the providers must instead 'estimate' network traffic which is far more dynamic and chaotic. They can't just evenly cut the line into equal parts for each individual on the network... we'd get no bandwidth that way.

So instead they figure out the average traffic volume of the network, compare that to the available broad bandwidth available, and select a bandwidth for you off of that. This is why Cable advertises its speeds as "upto 16/24/32 mbit". At peak times of the day the network is swamped and you're alotted bandwidth is overlapping with your neighbours bandwidth. So they just trim that part of.

This is why on-demand tends to be glitchy or have lower picture quality if watched at 8PM as opposed to watching it at say 1 in the afternoon.

The reason why say DSL doesn't do this is because DSL runs on phone lines. The phone lines were laid down under the idea that each individual house gets a static amount of bandwidth. There is no crossover, and they could do this because the telephone network was designed like this long ago when telephones were invented. This is why it's called DSL... Direct Subscriber Link. You have direct connection, instead of managed connections. It is also why DSL has much smaller amounts of bandwidth in comparison to fiber or cable.



Satellites work under these same principles. But it's usually on older tech, that isn't getting upgraded anytime soon, and has a much more limited bandwidth capacity... especially because the bandwidth is shared amongst all sorts of services, not just tv (they're expensive, so satellites get shared).

So just imagine the issues and hurdles. And you as a consumer don't even get an upload (well you could, but you'd need even more expensive hardware... and it would still be limited. Just look at the price of a satellite phone's service, and you'll know what I mean).

[Limewater]

A buddy of mine had satellite internet for a while (it was really all that was available in his area other then standard telephone modem).
*snip*

Great post!

I look forward to 2012 for your next one.

[lordofduct]

hahahaha

this place has changed a lot since I was last here... different dynamic to the discussions that I'm not used to. Hopefully I can wiggle myself back in.

[BoringSupreez]

I use satellite internet. I'm using it right now. It's the worst option outside of dial-up. And dial-up is actually superior in some ways, since it has less lag. I can't do any sort of online gaming with this internet. Not only that, it's expensive for what you get. And to top it all of, there's a 350 megabyte per day download cap, which, if exceeded, slows the speed down to about 2 kilobytes per second.

[RCBH928]

thanks lordofduct
your post was really helpful
I knew there was a good reason why they didnt use satellites

hopefully in the future they will figure some way to use satellites for internet because
its much simpler than digging the ground and installing long wires world wide